Reposted from Jennifer Marohasy’s Site
March 1, 2020 By jennifer
MY friend Craig Kelly – the Federal member for Hughes – attempted to raise the issue of the world’s longest heat wave record in the Australian parliament last Wednesday. He was shut down by Tony Burke, the manager of opposition business.
Specifically, Mr Kelly was attempting to draw attention to how the historical observations have been changed, and how the values as originally recorded at Marble Bar between 31 October 1923 and 7 April 1924 have been adjusted down. This was first brought to our attention by Chris Gilham, and reposted by Joanne Nova.
When the Australian Bureau of Meteorology cools the past – as it does with most of the 112 temperature series used to construct the official statistics – current temperatures appear hotter. The remodelling of Marble Bar has, to quote Mr Kelly, also robbed Australia of the world’s longest heatwave record. This now goes to Death Valley in California.
The Bureau has made many more changes to the Marble Bar record, than just dropping down the temperatures back in 1923 and 1924. With the first iteration of ACORN-SAT back in 2011, maximum temperatures as recorded at Marble Bar from 1967 back to 1910 were cooled on average by -0.41 °C, and from 1944 back to 1910 by an additional -0.52°C.
The Bureau claimed these changes were necessary because the weather station at Marble Bar has been moved, the moves created discontinuities in the temperature series, and these discontinuities can only be ‘corrected’ with reference to neighbouring sites.
In fact, the weather station at Marble Bar has always been just to the southeast of the town centre, on vacant public land on the edge of the Great Sandy Desert, which covers an area of about 284,993 km². There is no documentation for any move in 1944. In 1967 the weather station was apparently moved some metres. The distance is recorded as ‘small’ in the relevant catalogue.
The Bureau nevertheless identified weather stations at Mundiwindi (about 300 kms south), Wiluna (about 700 km south) and Roebourne (about 300 km east) as neighbouring stations suitable for comparison, specifically for fixing the perceived ‘discontinuity’ in 1944 created by the apparent station move.
The annual average maximum temperatures from the comparison sites move up and down in unison with the Marble Bar data including for the period from 1930 to 1940, as shown in Figure 1. This suggests that there is nothing wrong with the historical temperature observations for Marble Bar. And that feeding these stations together into the percentile matching algorithm would result in only minimal changes.
Figure 1. Maximum Temperatures Recorded at Marble Bar and Comparison Stations
The Bureau has listed Mundiwindi, Roebourne and Wiluna as comparison stations for Marble Bar.
Yet, the cumulative changes made to the original observations from Marble Bar in the creation of the new ACORN-SAT series (using the ‘nearby’ stations) make the new ACORN-SAT series less like the data from the nearby comparison stations.
The consequence of the changes to the maximum temperature series is that what was a cooling trend for Marble Bar of -0.6 °C per century from 1910 to 2005 in the original historical observations, becomes a warming trend of +0.396 °C per century from 1910 to 1918 in ACORN-SAT version 1, as shown in Figure 2. When ACORN-SAT version 1 was updated late 2018 to ACORN-SAT version 2, an even more significant +0.7 °C warming trend was generated for Marble Bar. ACORN-SAT version 2 is now the official temperature data base for Australia.
Figure 2. Historical Observations (blue) and Remodelled (red and orange)
The historical observations for Marble Bar (the raw data) from 1910 to 2005 indicate a cooling trend, this has been changed to a warming trend of 0.7 degrees Celsius per century in ACORN-SAT Version 2.
CHANGES TO INDIVIDUAL DAYS VERSUS CUMULATIVE
While the cumulative consequence of all the changes is a warming trend +0.7 °C Celsius per century in ACORN-SAT version 2, the changes are actually made to the daily values, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Temperatures for Six Days in November 1923
The daily values as recorded in the different databases for Marble Bar.
So while the actual temperature recorded at Marble Bar on 18th November 1923 was 44.7 °C, this has been changed to 43.7 in ACORN-SAT version 2. This is a difference of one whole degree, as shown in Table 1.
The difference is only 0.2 degrees on 21st November. This lack of consistency in the fiddling is because the Bureau applies what is called a percentile matching algorithm to generate the new temperature series. To quote from the relevant peer-reviewed paper as published by the Royal Meterological Society (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 33):
For the purposes of merging station series and correcting inhomogeneities, the data set has been developed using a technique, the percentile-matching (PM) algorithm, which applies differing adjustments to daily data depending on their position in the frequency distribution. This method is intended to produce data sets that are homogeneous for higher-order statistical properties, such as variance and the frequency of extremes, as well as for mean values. The PM algorithm is evaluated and found to have clear advantages over adjustments based on monthly means, particularly in the homogenization of temperature extremes.
TWO TEMPERATURE DATA BASES
Not many people are aware that the Bureau actually holds two very different temperature databases. Mostly, it uses what is called ACORN-SAT version 2 (Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature) for generating trends and announcing record hot years. This database also contains all the values that are sent to the United Nation’s International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC).
The other database includes the historical values more or less as originally recorded. This is called the Australian Data Archive for Meteorology (ADAM), also known as the Climate Data Online (CDO). This database has a reasonable amount of integrity and generally reflects values actually recorded across Australia. There are nevertheless some issues with ADAM. The mix of stations is changing, with stations that have recorded colder temperatures closed down. For example, Charlotte Pass on the slopes of Mount Kosciuszko holds the record for the coldest temperature ever recorded on mainland Australia at −23 °C on 19 June 1994. Inexplicably, this station was closed down in March 2015. Also of concern is that there was a period when lower limits were set on how cold temperatures could be recorded, for example the limit that was set at Goulburn of −10 °C between the years 2007 and 2017 and at Thredbo between 2002 and 2017.
Also, some ‘inconvenient’ early hot records have been deleted, for example 51.7 °C recorded at Bourke in western New South Wales on 3 January 1909. This record needs to be reinstated as it is the hottest day ever recorded in Australia using standard equipment, properly calibrated and in a Stevenson Screen. The Bureau’s only excuse for deleting it is that it was recorded on a Sunday, and the weather observer was not meant to come in on that day.
The existence of these two date bases is not denied by the Bureau, but interestingly key Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalists cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this fact. This is perhaps because of all the complications it raises.
LET US GET IT CHANGED BACK
The Bureau has a long history of making nonsense changes to important historical temperature data series. I’ve previously documented the situation at Rutherglen (Victoria), Bourke (New South Wales), Darwin (Northern Territory) and Amberley (Queensland).
I’ve been trying to get something done about this since at least 2014. Ministers within the current cabinet who are across this issue include Greg Hunt and Josh Frydenberg. So far, they have refused to do anything about it, because they apparently do not want the Australian public to lose confidence in the Bureau.
I suggest we begin a campaign, in the first instance to have the correct temperatures for Marble Bar for the period of the heatwave, which was from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924, included in the official temperature record. This will require the Bureau to notify the relevant IPCC working group that is currently incorporating the incorrect values into their Sixth Assessment report, which is being used for the first global stocktake under the Paris Agreement.
Is anybody surprised? To keep the climate change scam going there have to be lots of corrupt “scientists” prepared to do anything. After all, their careers and income depend on keeping the scam going. There are lots of corrupt politicians and others also involved in keeping the scam going (for money or power).
Maybe this is why it is now difficult to obtain full on-line Met Office UK weather records prior to 2001. Are they hiding something?
I wanted to build a dossier of weather in the UK around my birthday in March. I know that March 1995 to 2000 were much milder and sunny (and sometimes glorious), but have trouble finding the information. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
You will not get UK meteo daily data without paying for it.
I contacted John Kennedy of the Met Office to ask how I could get daily sun-hours and temp data for a small number of towns he explained that it was NOT publicly available.
Recall all the shenanigans exposed in ClimateGate about protecting their land surface data. They are quite determined not to have anyone audit and validate their data processing.
Greg,
Why not try seeking the data that you require from the Met Office freedom of information request?
It would be fun to learn how they could get out of that one. It would be difficult for them to use the usual excuse that it would cost too much to provide the data, since it must already be in easily accessed form.
NOAA has daily TMAX and TMIN data for over 100k stations available free on line. I don’t have the url handy, but just search for NOAA temperature data and follow the trail to GHCN Daily data. Its a pretty big honking data set , but individual stations are available.
Good luck!
An astute commentator pondered how it is that AGW acolytes can make predictions of temp 100 years in the future but aren’t sure next week what the temperature was 80 years ago.
I may have misquoted him, but you get the GISSt.
“.. but aren’t sure next week what the temperature was 80 years ago….”
… but aren’t sure next week what the temperature WILL BE 80 years ago….
There. I think that is more accurate….
Interestingly, can’t tell you what the temperature was 80 years ago without finding the original hand written entries, IF they can find them….
The first step in creating dependency on government is not creating a welfare state, it is creating a massive workforce that is paid via tax dollars. Next thing you know 30% of voters are voting for bigger government because that’s who is signing their checks.
Bratby
“corrupt (government bureaucrat) scientists” (yes) … plus stupid citizens too !
The citizens (us) LIVE IN a local climate, so are most qualified to judge if that local climate is changing.
And the citizens (us) are the most qualified to judge if the local climate changes they NOTICED (if any) were good news, or bad news !
Those of us who are old people (over 60), who tend to complain about the weather (and everything else) more than young people, are like the canaries in coal mines — we will be the first to complain about climate change IF THERE IS ANYTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.
We don’t need government bureaucrats with science degrees … making 100 year climate predictions … that have been consistently wrong since the 1980s !
Bob Dylan once sang:
“You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”
I’ll modify that to:
“You don’t need a government bureaucrat to know if your local climate is changing.”
Well, I dunno, I’ll never complain anymore about truly warm weather, ’cause it always feels good on my old bones…. Cold tho, I’ll b*tch about that more & more.
Phillip, most of those corrupt scientists are bureaucrats. Bureaucratic Handbook Rule #27: “When the facts don’t support the narrative, don’t change the narrative, change the facts.”
Footnote to Rule: Consult the Lawyers for guidance with fact changing.
Due to the impact on the historical significance of the measurements that the adjustments have made, I think a full step by step break-down of how each of these specific adjustments have been applied and validated would be warranted by the BOM and an official release on this. The loss of a world record is not a small thing. Even if part of a wider algorithm / homogenization, the detail is important in this case.
Should also have the move of the measuring equipment well documented to overturn such an old record?
Yes that is the issue I see the record stood for what 100 odd years and no-one cared and it was never exceeded. Then CAGW crowd come along and because they want the hottest day they seek to remove the record so the new record is in current times. On one hand Nick will tell you the reading doesn’t matter but then if it doesn’t matter why change it? Especially since no-one can seem to see the alleged evidence there was a mistake.
The CAGW crowd have a motive behind these sorts of changes and it is political and not scientific. As Nick says the single record by itself changes little but what it does do is stop is claiming the hottest day ever title in recent times.
It is super important that the original handwritten data is preserved somehow. Naturally, I do not trust the powers-that-be.
That paragraph describing the PM algorithm is a classic . If this was meant to provide clarity. Rather than placate the sceptics this just confirms that they want to fob everyone of by sounding as if the algorithm can be justified. Common sense tells you that if a piece of equipment is wrong one day by x% it’s likely to be wrong by the same amount the next day.
The fact that they felt a need to have an acorn 2 data set means that what Adjustments they did the first time was wrong . So how can one assume the latest adjustments are any better. The ethical way to argue is to allow your adjustments be subject to an independent audit.
If a conservative government with people like Craig Kelly agitating can’t get any traction one can only despair if and when the other mob gets in.
When my warmist friends ask me to follow the science , they say “ Are you saying the BOM, NASA, the IPCC and hosts of other scientists are telly porkies.” I reply that is exactly what I’m saying! And they look at me as if I told them I still think the world is flat.
I see a highly publicised investigation of the BOM would be a way to penetrate the Climate Change Fortress which is guarded and protected by big business, universities, media and heaps of vested interests. The cost savings that could be made for future generations from moderation of climate change policies would more than justify holding such an inquiry.
“This database also contains all the values that are sent to the United Nation’s International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC).”
“This will require the Bureau to notify the relevant IPCC working group that is currently incorporating the incorrect values into their Sixth Assessment report, which is being used for the first global stocktake under the Paris Agreement.”
This is arrant nonsense. The IPCC does not collect station data. No data about Marble Bar will appear in the AR6. The BoM submits current data to the WMO via CLIMAT forms. This is unadjusted data. That appears in GHCN, which is used for temperature indices. In fact most of the stations in the GHCN inventory are not even ACORN stations. An adjusted version of the GHCN is also produced, but using the pairwise comparison that is used for the rest of the world, not ACORN.
Stokes. I’ll take your silence on the major point of the post as meaning you agree with that part.
What is the point of the post?
Maybe if you look up “perfidy”, you’re presented the BoM logo?
Talk about arrant nonsense!
What is the point of the post? – Nick Stokes
Jeez you are a piece of work Nick!
The point is that record heat waves, maximum temperature records and the documented past have been obliterated in the shameless pursuit of a disgusting political ideology that serves no one but the corrupt!
Marble Bar was hotter in the past, had longer heat waves, had higher maximum temperatures and a long term cooling trend, all now memory-wholed by Bureaucrats of the Ministry* known as the BOM!
*The Ministry of Truth
“The Bureau’s only excuse for deleting it is that it was recorded on a Sunday, and the weather observer was not meant to come in on that day”.
LOL.
What’s their problem, is it they think he probably couldn’t focus due to a heavy Saturday night?
It’s not as if he had to go very far to read the instrument, Marble Bar in 1898:
http://www.hoadly.co.uk/hoadly2/img25600-a1-204×116-719x410_full.jpg
“Marble Bar in 1898”
In fact the complaint is about Bourke in 1909, also not a large city. But there is more to the story than that the chap was not supposed to come in. In fact he recorded 110°F at 3pm, then wrote down 125, which the supervisor then crossed out. Later the 125 did resurface in the summary of the month. I think the Bureau did have good reason to regard it as doubtful.
Regarding Bourke, one simple explanation is that on the Sunday they accidently wrote the 125 down in the saturday section which was then corrected to the sunday. A number of other area’s reported similar temps in the local rag’s.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/the-mysterious-lost-hot-sunday-in-bourke-did-it-really-happen/
I love Nick who claims others make up claims without any evidence publishes a lovely tall tale with no evidence. At least Marohasy and Nova are actually trying to find out the real story and look at the physical record. There seems to be plenty of myths and legends around what happened but I think we might actually like to know what the real story was not just accept Nick because he is always so honest.
Jennifer has shown a facsimile of the handwritten page here.
Strangely the red inked changes look like they are written in the “modern style”, i.e. when penmanship was no longer practiced at school. The uniformity of the thickness of the strokes and the red ink (as opposed the the tapering of the strokes from the original black fountain pen) suggests that this was made with a ball point pen.
Ball point pens didn’t come into commercial use until the mid to late 1940’s.
Nick, can you explain the physics of a thermometer varying in “accuracy” on a daily basis by the seemingly random numbers on the last 2 columns of Table 1?
Looking at that I would say the supervisor clarified the entry above was 112 and confirmed the 125 by overwriting it and ticking it. That actually looks like a far more likely meaning of those corrections. That also fits with the report the supervisor made. So I read the corrections very different to the Nick fairytale. You still have not given any actual evidence of your fairytale Nick?
But here is the thing neither of us were there and unless and we can dream up whatever story we want. In the absence of clear unequivocal evidence history should stand and this is doubly true when there is a political motive to change history.
at the end of the day, 125 was actually physically written down 3 times in the whole process and underlined once. Any adjustments noted in the relevant area also ticked & confirmed. The abstract of results agrees with the max readings taken, so whatever happened during the weekend they were happy to sign off on. You can be sure that a temp this high would not have just gone through to the keeper without questions being asked at the time.
There is also corroboration in other local papers it was a freakin’ hot day with similar numbers thrown around. Safe to assume 125 was a legit reading with low/no evidence to discard it. The onus should be on the BOM to show enough proof to discard it, not the other way around.
At 3pm the temp is recorded as 110F.
It is unfeasible that the temp should be another 15F above that at max insulation.
I suggest that if this were occurring this year then there would be no objections here.
An additional 8C + on top of the 3pm temp is rightly considered suspicious.
Not to mention the fact (bizarre conspiracy theory aside) that someone corrected it, and logic dictates that the correction is, well, correct.
But then conspiracy ideation is the default here.
And the BOM is supposed to ignore the correction and the meteorological thermodynamics of 125F being unfeasible.
Insolation is rather less important after 3pm than a wind shift bringing hot air into the area. This can easily raise the temperatures by 13 degrees.
This is a lot more likely than the operator misreading a max thermometer to the extent of writing 125 when it should have been 112, frankly I’d be more surprised that it was exactly the same temperature as the day before.
Correction:
Max insolation.
Anthony another fairtytale teller … prove it …. not I think or I wish or I speculate.
It appears in the monthly report, it appears in the yearly report, there is supporting evidence and it has stood unchallenged for 100 years.
What is next we make Ned Kelly aboriginal because he is painted dark in all the paintings and it shows the persecution of the nations first people by the white authorities of the time.
AnthonyB, the 112 and the 125 are different days. Confirmed by the fact the 112 was written on the second line and eventually ticked, and the 125 was written on the 3rd as verified by being on the correct line, underlined, and then verified by the end of month report confirming 125 was taken on the 3rd.
There were no corrections made to the original 125 read at all, it stands.
The only dubious measurement would be the 112 on the 2nd if you want to spilt hairs, but that reading is irrelevant. Your objection to the +8 difference on the same day does not hold as they are documented different days.
As a side, the way the number “2” was written on both days (in black) would also suggest a different person wrote it, but that is just my speculation, not being a hand writing expert.
Taking a very wild swing at this, I would say the boys (or girls) were down the pub on the Sunday afternoon, someone made the comment it was a crap hot day, maybe the hottest they have ever had, so doing the right thing, one of them downed their beer and raced to to the post office to record the reading. Being a Sunday, the wet/dry humidity bulb had not been setup (probably totally dry), which was not an issue as the temp was the key parameter everyone was interested in. Measurement done, straight back to the pub for another beer on Australia’s hottest day ever.
That’s how you set a record Oz style!
harry…..”Strangely the red inked changes look like they are written in the “modern style”, i.e. when penmanship was no longer practiced at school. The uniformity of the thickness of the strokes and the red ink (as opposed the the tapering of the strokes from the original black fountain pen) suggests that this was made with a ball point pen.
Ball point pens didn’t come into commercial use until the mid to late 1940’s.
Nick, can you explain the physics of a thermometer varying in “accuracy” on a daily basis by the seemingly random numbers on the last 2 columns of Table 1?”
************************************************************************
This is the most entertaining post I think I’ve ever read.
“An additional 8C + on top of the 3pm temp is rightly considered suspicious.”
But strangely the lowering of temperatures from 90 to to 69, a whopping 21 degrees, two days later isn’t suspicious, despite yielding a larger 17degF increase after 3pm????
“Anthony another fairtytale teller … prove it”
As they say in courts, “Beyond reasonable doubt”.
There is considerable doubt.
Result: ignore the 125.
Just what you would want if the reading were taken there last SH summer.
Isn’t it?
(rhetorical)
Hey Anthony, I see what you did there, nice subtle shifting of responsibility.
The result has stood for over 100 years, approved when recorded, quoted the world over as a record, but apparently it is now “we” who have to prove it should not be removed.
Besides the fact we have shown ample evidence that there is no reason to doubt the validity of the reading, you have your point of responsibility wrong mate.
The onus is on you to prove that the reading IS false/in error and you need to prove that point “beyond reasonable doubt”, as it is you that want to rewrite history.
So far you have shown no evidence the reading is false/in error.
This shifting of the burden of “proof of responsibility” seems common place in the current climate debate.
Nick writes
Thanks for pointing out the image. The 125 isn’t crossed out, its clearly underlined. There’s no “supervisor red” on it. It appears to be written on a line of its own which is presumably the Sunday where they wouldn’t normally record if your story is correct. It’d be good to see the whole page in context.
On the radio I heard a caller talking about Marble Bar and its consecutive period of days above 100F and he says his mother had a letter from her sister who lived there and said their thermometer read 128F.
So perhaps the BOM should be looking at other evidence available in the local area before reducing the recored temperature.
And Anthony Banton, I not you have ignored the change made two days later that yielded a 17F increase after 3pm despite you claiming that at 13F increase after 3pm was physically impossible.
“The Bureau’s only excuse for deleting it is that it was recorded on a Sunday, and the weather observer was not meant to come in on that day”.
What’s their problem, is it they think he probably couldn’t focus due to a heavy Saturday night?
It’s not as if he had to go very far to read the instrument, Marble Bar in 1898:
http://www.hoadly.co.uk/hoadly2/img25600-a1-204×116-719x410_full.jpg
I read in the guest post:
“The Bureau has a long history of making nonsense changes to important historical temperature data series. I’ve previously documented the situation at Rutherglen (Victoria), Bourke (New South Wales), Darwin (Northern Territory) and Amberley (Queensland).”
Oh! The lady forgot her latest post concerning… Wagga Wagga.
Hmmmh. Why that?
Here is the Wagga Wagga story:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SBecF1n6lBlg2S4ei8Ixk5Pcr2GoR3Hf/view
This is a graph constructed out of raw raw data from the GHCN daily corner, based on the following stations:
ASN00072151 -35.1333 147.3667 240.0 WAGGA WAGGA (KOORINGAL) – 1871 1950
ASN00072150 -35.1583 147.4573 212.0 WAGGA WAGGA AMO – 1942 2019
ASN00074114 -35.1311 147.3091 222.0 WAGGA WAGGA RESEARCH CENTRE – 1948 2003
The data is communicated to NOAA by BoM.
You clearly see that Mrs Mahorasy’s claim about unduly adjustments by BoM is incorrect.
The Kooringal station (about which btw surprisingly nobody tells anything about its UHI-suspected location) definitely shows temperatures nearly 1 °C above the rest.
It was therefore correct to adjust Kooringal to the data provided by the AMO and Research stations.
The same is done by GISTEMP since 1998: UHI suspected stations are adjusted to their more rural environment:
The Kooringal data at BOM is discontinuous at around 1910. It’s trend from 1910 to 1950 is cooling of a degree per century of Tmax that gets turned into warming trend rather than correction of pre 1910 to line up after 1910.
Could you try again?
“It’s trend from 1910 to 1950 is cooling of a degree per century of Tmax that gets turned into warming trend rather than correction of pre 1910 to line up after 1910.”
What turns it into a warming trend is the very strong uptrend of Wagga raw data since 1943, at 2.5 °/Cen. The lack of warming of Kooringal correctly brings this back to a small positive trend over the century for the combination. What would not be correct would be to combine the two locations without allowing for the fact that Kooringal is shown by the overlap period to be about 1°C warmer.
What turns a cooling trend from 1910-1950 into warming one is the warming after 1943 in at a site that shows a zero trend from the late 50s to 2000.
Great science.
LOL…. The weather station is located at their airport and in the middle of a farm where I’m betting irrigation happens.
Temperatures look fairly flat until the mid nineties where, according to the Wiki
“On 28 January 1992 the Wagga Wagga City Council secured a 30-year lease from the Commonwealth of Australia which included a $2 million to upgrade the airport’s runway to allow it to handle Boeing 737s.”
Robert B
“It’s trend from 1910 to 1950 is cooling of a degree per century of Tmax that gets turned into warming”
You did not understand.
What BoM did is to displace Kooringal down to AMO).
Please look again at the graph.
Didn’t you see that it starts by 1900, instead of 1910? I could have started much earlier, namely in… 1871.
But… apologies! I just see that I generated the data with the wrong specification (TAVG instead of TMAX). Will soon be corrected.
My point anyway is not to show BoM data, but the same raw data available in NOAA’s GHCN daily.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Marohasy starts her plots from 1910. It’s clear from the data why http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_stn_num=072151
They did not just displace it down because that should have only been to data before 1910.
Robert Balic
Here is a TMAX graph for Kooringal/AMO, starting this time in 1910:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UlVR1ZFMwJOxPRGtr5PjbJGKAKSQ4N_3/view
and here is a graph based on the same data, but with Kooringal shifted down by the average of the differences of the monthly values for Kooringal and AMO, for their common period 1942-1950:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QtnWvwxYkaVw_KhUf-JqoiugYEV8_ijq/view
The linear estimate of this layman Kooringal-AMO synthesis is
0.10 ± 0.02 °C / decade, or 1 °C per century (0.9823 exactly).
Do I see right?
Is somebody really bothering about an increase form 0.4 up to 0.7 °C per century, though the higher ACORN2 value is way lower than a simple estimate?
I would have understood if BoM’s estimate for Kooringal-AMO had been e.g. 1.2 C per century.
What is your point, Sir?
J.-P. D.
The problem with the data is after 200.
It would be scientifically sound to simply exclude all weather stations that were affected by a UHI. Adjusting bad data to produce ‘good’ data doesn’t pass the sniff test.
True. If UHI is not removed, it is incorporated and employed. Even a child could understand this. Why can’t Nick et al?
It becomes even more ludicrous when one considers that doomers claim that they can measure global temperatures to a hundredth of a degree. Sheesh!
Malcolm Roberts is another Australian politician who is willing to put himself out there to debunk AGW. He is a Senator of the One Nation Party. The founder of this party Pauline Hanson has always put the truth out there, no matter how controversial. She was even wrongly sent to jail for her convictions, and still persued her political ambitions.
The YouTube video goes for around half an hour and is of Malcolm Roberts, Tony Heller and Professor Tim Ball. It was put out in Nov 2016 but it’s still entirely relevant.
https://youtu.be/wwQ6BiqeBcg
This sort of thing goes on with NOAA stations. Here’s a “then and now” for Los Angeles:
The response from NOAA when asked about the difference said:
… there was a data source change within that era. That’s what is behind the differences. It was initially unadjusted Global Summary of the Month data and now it’s their in house “NorthAm ” database, which is adjusted for inhomogeneities. In addition, with their February release, they removed all estimated data, which explains the data gaps in the timeseries.
The then and now images are taken from NOAA’s Climate at a Glance:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series
These records are the property of the Australian people (taxpayers) when are we (and the politicians)
going to demand a full and clear explanation for these changes, they are not the playthings of the public servants and any change should be fully justified on the basis of continued employment
“I’ve been trying to get something done about this since at least 2014. Ministers within the current cabinet who are across this issue include Greg Hunt and Josh Frydenberg. So far, they have refused to do anything about it, because they apparently do not want the Australian public to lose confidence in the Bureau.”
I think we are all much more likely to lose far more confidence in the Bureau if nothing is done. If they have integrity, they should be accepting of others working to improve quality. The analysis will certainly not go away and stop, better to engage then to ignore.
ecoGuy, I lost interest and trust in BOM years ago. They can’t even present the ‘facts’ on a day to day basis with current meteorological material. How can we possibly trust them to present the truth in past or future material. They have become a joke, no one trusts them!
for over a week now the sat data has been glitchyor not there to see more than a brif spedup glimpse on bom own pages its a subs thing now
rainfall pressuren temps for my town are dodgy as hell IF theyre even shown
trust Bom?
no
but it makes it damned hard for the local farmers recently
It seems pretty clear to me after looking at all the toing and froing regarding adjustments and whether thay are correct or complete BS that the real, brutal and highly inconvenient truth is that the surface temperature data set is simply unfit for the purpose of establishing a global temperature trend. That leaves us all up excrement creek to some degree since the possibility of such a trend over time , one way or the other, cannot be confidently quantified. Tough titty climate alarmists but we operate in an evidence based system and the evidence is so tainted it is just unreliable. Go to the satellite or balloon record over the last 40 years, the CET record or some local/regional/national sets from contant sites of acceptable quality but that’s about it. One problem is that there has been orders of magnitude greater increase in concrete, bitumen and steel affecting local temperatures than CO2 that may be affecting the planet’s atmosphere.
The ‘data’ used by the BOM to justify its flawed reporting/forecasting. It selects 1910 as the convenient starting date and it fails to include data from 1890 to give a longer view notwithstanding the alleged inaccuracies of the data collected prior to 1910.
So the BOM has constructed an artificial edifice with this approach.
Yet some of its staff can produce a reasonable conclusion to the recent effects of the Indian Ocean Dipole. In addition, members of the BOM accurately forecast the events leading up to the last major floods in Brisbane.
Its just the inability to manage and report on the data collected is the issue.
Time for a an audit.
The mining/exploration industry is now subjected to that type of rigour. It is now the turn of the BOM.
A progressive is a person who values the narrative above the facts. It is from this basic approach that all else flows.
Ewin, facts are everything. The narrative alone progresses nothing, it is meaningless.
Which was, in fact, Ewin’s point.
In paragraph 11 should “from 1910 to 1918” read “from 1910 to 2018”?
Never mind that Urban Heat Island encroachment should push modern temperature recordings down. Every single adjustment ever made by any government has resulted in historic temperature recordings being pushed down. It makes no sense. There is no possible rational for it. It is either deliberat data ‘fudging’ or a massive case of confirmation bias spanning the entire climate industry.
Jeff,
There is a rationale behind making some adjustments:
New electronic sensors tend to react faster, thus catching more high temps,
Aspirated thermometers tend to read lower in calm wind conditions, thus reading “low” compared to previous thermometers (so ‘fix’ it for trend purposes by adjusting previous temps down…)
Basically they shouldn’t adjust the records at all….because that is equivalent to saying the people taking historical recordings were incapable of reading a thermometer. Their analysis of trends should simply declare what adjustments they made to confirm their warming or cooling hypothesis, and leave it up to the reader to determine if their adjustments make sense for the readers’ interpretation. Unfortunately, a cottage industry of programmers and statisticians collect government paycheques for this work, which they maintain is of great value.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wea.2166
“Basically they shouldn’t adjust the records at all….because that is equivalent to saying the people taking historical recordings were incapable of reading a thermometer.”
That’s right. I would trust the people who actually recorded the data, as they had no reason to manipulate their data. I don’t trust the people who use computers to manipulate this data in the least. It is obvious they *do* have a reason to manipulate the data and are manipulating the temperature record to achieve a political goal.
Here’s a good example of what the temperature Data Manipulators are doing to the Earth’s temperature record (in this case the US record):
https://realclimatescience.com/2020/02/zombie-climate-science/
“It is either deliberat data ‘fudging’”
Fraud, in other words.
The BOM has produced a fraudulent temperature record in an effort to promote human-caused climate change. The actual temperature record shows the 1930’s to be just as warm as today so they can’t use that to promote their human-caused climate change fraud, so they changed the temperaure record to make it look like things are hotter now than at any time in human history, which is just a blatant lie.
Austrailia could save themselves a lot of money and pain by dropping the adjusted temperature record and proclaiming the actual temperature readings as the official Australian temperature record. Then there would be no need to spend mulitple billions of dollars trying to lower CO2 production because it is not a problem and the actual temperature readings demonstrate it.
That applies to every other nation on Earth, too. The Data Manipulators have changed your temperature data, too. Go back to the original temperature readings of your region and quit wasting your money on human-caused climate change schemes.
I think that is the real problem they have allowed a political agenda to change the entry. It stood for 100 years and to overturn it you need clear and compelling evidence and the paperwork itself is far from that. There are a number of ways to interpret the supervisors corrections what is important is what he submitted which was 125.
Simple logic and commonsense rests in the growth of major cities, the UHI (self generated heat island) ranges in the order of three to 4 Celsius – so any past 100 year old temperature “record” must be exceeded by at least the minimum UHI – these days the BOM and the media is hysterical about old records exceeded by tenths of a degree. Highest Evah has become a standing joke among the Australian public. For that reason it is obvious why the BOM and Nick Stokes MUST lower the old temperatures records by any tricks or semantics they can use.
Shameful that our historical weather data is treated like this. Hopefully at the forthcoming Royal Commission I will be able to contribute to legal representation at that Commission to ensure that the issue of data manipulation is fully explored and methods identified.
Yep Australia’s BoM believes it knows more than those who actually recorded those temperatures almost 100 years ago. This latest unproven assertion was concocted in one of their capital city, airconditioned offices a mere 4,000 Kms from Marble Bar.
Why should anyone take any notice of the BoM rewriting Australia’s 100 year old temperature records when it couldn’t even forecast the recent East Coast downpours two weeks ahead?
The million dollar a day BoM continues to demonstrate it’s subservience to the IPCC and the UN by concentrating on cooling the past to exaggerate alleged global warming.
The Marble Bar temperatures are still the world record despite the BoM’s latest thought bubble which should be ignored, until and if, it is ever independently verified.
Time to audit the BOM.
“Simple logic and commonsense rests in the growth of major cities, the UHI (self generated heat island) ranges in the order of three to 4 Celsius – so any past 100 year old temperature “record” must be exceeded by at least the minimum UHI”
Good point, seldom (if ever) mentioned.
It is far from Australia, but I thought this temperature record for Moscow was worth noting.
The DJF average was above freezing for the first time in some 200 years of record keeping.
A nice graph is here: https://twitter.com/EKMeteo/status/1233813154997600256
Use the translate function to get the English language version.
Note that this may be UHI related, but this winter was way above normal throughout Eurasia.
Yep the high priced help at our BoM believes it knows more than those who actually recorded those temperatures almost 100 years ago. This latest unproven assertion was concocted in one of their capital city, airconditioned offices a mere 4,000 Kms from Marble Bar.
Why should anyone take any notice of the BoM rewriting Australia’s 100 year old temperature records when it couldn’t even forecast the recent East Coast downpours two weeks ahead?
The million dollar a day BoM continues to demonstrate it’s subservience to the IPCC and the UN by concentrating on cooling the past to exaggerate alleged global warming.
The Marble Bar temperatures are still the world record despite the BoM’s latest thought bubble which should be ignored, until and if, it is ever independently verified.
Time to audit the BOM.
BOM et. al. need to:
1) ensure there is instrument overlap to measure and validate possible effects of changing site/instrument/method.
2) replicated previous measuring methods for unofficial temperatures to compare with modern instruments and varying conditions.
3) keep greater documentation of site/instrument/method changes.
4) better document the changes made by decisions and algorithms.
5) use multiple methods for handling data anomalies to show the range of temperatures that may have occurred and possible effects of errors.
6) accurately show the true confidence interval caused by changing site/instrument/method and subsequent data manipulation. Measuring 1.5C difference when temperatures have been adjusted by upto +/- 2C over time would be less reliable.
7) provide sufficient data to calculate the accuracy of past weather predictions leading to each real day.
8) provide free access to historical data and associated documentation.
9) pick the top 5% to 10% of sites with the most reliable data to check assumptions of global climate change.
Thank you Jennifer for your efforts to create accountability for institutional data corruption at BOM. This is similar corruption to Tony Heller’s recent highlighting that 35% of US temperature stations are now being “estimated” based on interpolation from surrounding records. 424 stations no longer report since they maxed out at 1205 stations in 1989, most of this occurring in the last 20 years. They have been replaced by temperature estimates. Heller shows from analysis that these man-made “zombie” temperature records are showing a much greater warming trend than the actual stations. Go figure.
Tony Heller’s report –
https://realclimatescience.com/2020/03/calculating-temperatures-without-thermometers/
I uploaded the research detailing ACORN’s theft of Marble Bar’s 1923/24 heatwave world record several months ago at http://www.waclimate.net/very-hot-days-marble-bar.html
The page is worth visiting (desktop page, not mobile), as are its associated links.
It’s worth noting that the Marble Bar world record is essentially a headline case study of the inconsistent/illogical ACORN adjustments to day-by-day temperatures at all 112 stations in the network, predominantly in the first half of the 20th century back to 1910.
In the context of the broader adjustment debate that dominates the comments in this post, it’s interesting to note that the head of the BoM’s climate monitoring unit claimed a couple of days ago that Australia has warmed by about 1.4C while the rest of the world has increased by about 1.1C – a fairly significant 0.3C difference that’s 27% greater than the global average.
Coincidentally, that’s not far off last year’s introduction of ACORN 2, which increased the per decade mean temperature warming trend calculated by the apparently world-class ACORN 1 dataset (introduced 2011) by 23%.
Putting aside the debate about whether any of these increases are legitimate, it does make you wonder if CO2 has a preference for warming one particular country in the southern hemisphere, or if Australia’s historic temperature homogenisation process is the cause.
Second try:
Don’t skim over Tony Burke.
He is the laziest left-wing politician in the Australian Federal Parliament.